CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4690K vs 8350 among desktop CPUs (over 75W)

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

8.9

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i5 4690K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 4690K  based on its power consumption.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 4690K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 4690K

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower typical power consumption 71.5W vs 159.66W 2.2x lower typical power consumption
Much better performance per watt 11.31 pt/W vs 5.83 pt/W Around 95% better performance per watt
Much lower annual home energy cost 21.2 $/year vs 56.1 $/year 2.6x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 77.09 $/year vs 159.62 $/year 2.1x lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 8350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8350

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.5 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Much higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.9 GHz Around 10% higher turbo clock speed
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.73 GHz vs 4.52 GHz Around 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better performance per dollar 8.31 pt/$ vs 4.15 pt/$ More than 2x better performance per dollar

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 4690K vs FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4690K
11,924
FX 8350
11,483

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
2,193

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4690K
5,060,000 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4690K
11,872
FX 8350
10,956

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4690K
12,942
FX 8350
12,126

GeekBench

Core i5 4690K
12,942
FX 8350
12,796

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 8350
9,134

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 8350
1,525

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 4690K  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.9 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Is unlocked Yes Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
XOP
AVX
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
ABM
BMI1
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 88W 125W
Annual home energy cost 21.2 $/year 56.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 77.09 $/year 159.62 $/year
Performance per watt 11.31 pt/W 5.83 pt/W
Typical power consumption 71.5W 159.66W

details

Core i5 4690K  vs
FX 8350 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 8
L3 cache 6 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.72°C Unknown - 61°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.52 GHz 4.73 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.58 GHz 8.79 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 4,652.1 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.52 GHz 4.73 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 4600 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,200 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3L-1600
DDR3-1333
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i5 4690K
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
This comparison is very odd. They say the 4690K typically uses about 72 watts, whereas the FX-8350 typically uses about 160 watts. So they're assuming an insane overclock on the FX-8350, and a substantial underclock on the 4690K. They also appear to give huge props to the 4690K for its integrated graphics, which makes no sense. How many people with the 4690K run the integrated graphics? In terms of real-world performance, these CPUs are very evenly matched; some contests will go to the 4690K and others will go to the FX-8350. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
I would say that it depends on what you wanna do. Me for example wanted to build a computer for Arma 3, and for that reason i choose the i5 instead of the FX. But at the same time, i would say that AMD makes generally good CPU, but i would prefer i5 when it comes to Arma 3, because of more power from a single core. But if you're not gonna play CPU heavy games, i would go with a AMD.
I'm glad that you found it informative!
Thank you, that was a very educationed response
Right, but you need to be very careful with the definition of "core": Ever since the introduction of the Pentium, we've come to expect two integer cores, or ALUs, and one FPU. This means that every processor advertised as a single-core since then would typically have two ALUs, and one FPU, as a grand total. A dual-core CPU would be exactly twice of both; four ALUs, and two FPUs, and four times this for quad, and so on, so fourth. A Bulldozer processor, however, has a different definition: per module, you get one FPU, and two integer clusters, which each have two ALUs. AMD advertises their processors as having the amount of cores as there are a pair of ALUs. As such, the definition of "core" has changed, and so has the performance, due to the lack of FPUs (see the Intel 80486SX vs. the DX) Alas, people are hardly aware of this, many even refuting it. Carefully studying the Bulldozer block diagrams is what reveals the truth behind what I state here. Ultimately, this just means that AMD Bulldozer processors' advertised core counts is a totally different story than any other processor ever made, assuming that absolutely zero others are made the same.
It has two compute cores in each modules, it's literally not hyper threading because each core acts independently without having another thread but it is packaged in the module so the pipeline is garbage.
at the end, both are the same sh*t. So, buy what your need.
Isn't bad, they are good, I recommended FX 8350 to a friend and it runs pretty well. Just it has more power consumption (Bill), at the end is noticeable.
I own a FX 8350 with stock cooler, overclocked to 4.4 Ghz without even touching the voltage. The temps are 38 to 51 in full load(measured with AIDA64 not Core temp) I'm running a Minecraft server with 41 players, let youtube play music, talk on Skype and eventually share screens, and to top it all up i also play WOT at 60 fps and never drops below 51 fps. I dont have AMD mobo, now tell, which part of the FX 8350 is bad ? And Joseph Schultz the FX 8350 is a 8 core cpu, 2 cores in a module, and the FX 8350 has 4 modules. If you really want to test you intel CPU whatever it is i5 4690k or even i7 4790k against my FX 8350 i will be glad to run a rendering test with you whenever you like my friend. Oh and my electric bill is just fine :)
Really it all depends on what you want. Intel is far superior in workstations and high-end gaming rigs. AMD offers no hyperthreading options, just more cores that equal an i5 in performance. AMD has it's sweet spot in low-end gaming rigs and HTPC's with their APU's. Simply, put, they have their weaknesses, AMD being performance and Intel being price.
This very website does say : Much lower annual home energy cost 21.2 $/year vs 56.1 $/year 2.6x lower annual home energy cost. It's not 88$ / year, but over 4 years, that's about 140$ difference. Now it will vary depending where you live, but those figures kind of make sense...
That's certainly right, yes, you don't want to buy a low-budget board for overclocking. The thing is, you buy a good board and CPU cooler for overclocking with getting more performance for your money in mind, even though you wind up just spending more money to begin with. Since the more you're wanting to overclock, the lesser of a chance it'll work, overclocking may not even be worth investing in to start with. A nice example: the G3258 can overclock nicely, even on the stock cooler, but it still won't net you the gains that even a locked i5 has the potential to bring. The good side of this is that it doesn't really cost anything extra to overclock a G3258, since it's entirely possible on the stock cooler (thanks to Intel for including the copper-core stock cooler with that CPU), and since a motherboard to OC it isn't expensive (the ASRock H97 Anniversary is absolutely sufficient, despite having a H-series chipset). That's the way overclocking should be; not costing any more, thus letting you get more for your money...while AMDs have you choking more money on a cooler & motherboard, which isn't value. AMDs already even have you wanting a cooler if you're running stock! If one insists, sure that's fine, but noone should play like AMDs are better value when they actually aren't, especially when it's to the point that an overclocking-locked Intel platform still winds up outperforming them, quite possibly for less total cost.
You're right, but still it was a good budget CPU if all you did was gaming (not anymore now, though, more like 2 or more year ago), I guess 6300 was best bang for buck if all you did was gaming. Shouldn't use low budget boards anyway if you plan to buy a chip for overclocking. But intel is a much better value, I hate my poor ass for not being able to upgrade for at least 6 more months :(. Still on my shit 8350
Lol 88.00 dollar extra a year, dude. You live with your parents I assume. You maybe (I don't feel like doing math so I estimate) pay like 10 dollars more per year if you go amd. What's 10 dollar in a fucking year.. 0.833 cents extra a month, shoot me now please. And that even depends how much you use your system. 15 dollars according to JayzTwoCents, but I guess that depends on where you live. Here electricity is really cheap, dunno for murica.
omg these scores are identical "almost" what program in 2015 uses one single core??? dude no one cares about you fan boys if you can get an i5 with a mobo cheaper than amd with mobo then do it for the love of god everyone shut up!
You are absolutely right my friend. Not to mention that you need much more better cooling to keep an AMD cpu at reasonable temperatures. Needing much more better cooling costs money and all these things pile up and you can even get to a higher price per total choosing AMD instead of Intel.
:)
Well that's actually my setup. Look, i also took a pic after posting this comment. And im sorry if i expressed my self not very well, but im not english native. I means, all this time i tryed to say ''i do own this setup'' if that the correct sentence. I thought ''have'' is when you have something, and ''had'', when you don't have it anymore. Understand? I still learning English. Cheers. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2edd22bf7f2e5dd437b35fea3be831ca0533f826429e545d7f8fc345ed0d5a7b.jpg
Here you go dude, you did say you had a 4690k:)
Ericson bob bear 8 days ago You most be living under a bridge or all of AMD users do. Im not rich and i have this setup, with an i5 4690K. Here the specs: »Case: Corsair Carbide 400R »MB: ASUS Z97-A USB 3.1 »CPU: Intel® Core™ i5 4690K »RAM: 4x4 (16GB) Kingston HyperX Fury 1866 »SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 120GB »HDD: WD Caviar Blue 1TB »GPU: 2x GTX 960 4GB FTW in SLI »PSU: Corsair RM650 As you can see, you don't need to be rich to have this, just work and you'll get all you want. You clearly said you had a 4690k dude.. That is a strait copy and paste and here is the link to your comments, scroll down and you will see where you commented that you have a 4690k.. You also provided a picture of your rig.. https://disqus.com/by/disqus_wEMA3n8xgi/?utm_source=reply&utm_medium=email&utm_content=comment_author Why would you lie about your rig? The Internet is a very small place mate and eventually all of your lies will surface.. Now you have no credibility so how would you know if AMD processors are crap? By the looks of it you don't even own a decent computer, I was being very respectful to you in regards to our conversation was I not? Look I'm not laughing at you mate, not at all but next time just be honest and please don't bash on hardware that you really have no clue about.. I speak from personal experience and every bit of hardware I comment about I have owned or do own..
I've never said i had a 4690K. Show me where i did...
So you own a 4690k? Because in other posts you said you had a 4690k? You expressed your opinion and I expressed mine..
Well, by the time im running a 4690K on my machine. But look, i don't hate AMD, and i know isnt bad at all, it's a good brand on GPU and CPU side. I alwasy recommend it to people with low budget who asks for good performance at a lower price. I just always said, if you want the best performance, and longlasting performance, go for Intel, but if you have a low budget, and want a decent performance, go for AMD. Just that.
Logan is honest and his review is indicative of the performance of FX series processors.. Most reviewers have bias opinions towards AMD hardware but in my experience AMD's FX series aren't that bad at all, same could be said to you? Just because Digital Storm and Foundry have bad reviews on FX series processors doesn't mean they are bad, if they were so bad I wouldn't recommend them and I most certainly wouldn't have bought one my self.. I do allot of video conversion and rendering and my FX9370 does an excellent job, I can convert a large video file and game at the same time.. My 5820k isn't that much quicker at converting a large video file, what's a couple of minutes at the end of the day.. I have been gaming on PC since the Olivetti M24 and I have allot of experience in computers, the FX series processors aren't that bad.. Why do you take it so personal and why are you so angry about it? Have you ever owned an FX series CPU? Have you ever owned a high end Intel cpu?
I am not bias towards any manufacturer.. I have both a 5820k\Nvidia build and an FX9370\Radeon build, you wouldn't be able to get a 4690k to 5ghz on air, under water probably? both processors are a great option for a gaming build, all I was trying to say is that FX series processors are really great for the money.. A 4690k costs $370 in my country and an FX8320 is $198 and an FX9370 is $250 so for the money they represent excellent value, you can't deny that.. For the extra $178 a 4690k should perform better but in gaming there is no difference between an FX series processor and a 4690k.. On my 9370 I can covert a large video file and game at the same time and my friend who has a 4690k can't do that so take from that what you wish.. If you want a 4690k buy a 4690k no one is stopping you, I prefer both..
comments powered by Disqus